Larry C. Johnson
sonar21
| <• Choose your language • Elija su idioma | |
Resize text-+= |
Yes, the CIA is Lying About the Drone Attack on Putin
Didn’t take the CIA too long to try to debunk Russia’s claim that Ukraine, with the assistance of NATO intelligence, launched 91 drones at the official residence of Vladimir Putin in Novgorod… A CIA report was leaked to the media. The headlines last night — 31 December — in the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal insisted that the Russians were lying. The NY Times proclaimed: Ukraine Did Not Target Putin’s Home, C.I.A. Finds. The WSJ followed suit: U.S. Finds Ukraine Didn’t Target Putin in Drone Strike.
Here is a condensed summary of the WSJ article:
U.S. national security officials, including assessments from the CIA, concluded that Ukraine did not target Russian President Vladimir Putin or his Valdai country residence in northwestern Russia’s Novgorod region during a recent drone operation. This directly contradicts Moscow’s claims that Kyiv launched 91 drones in an assassination attempt on Putin over the weekend of December 28-29, 2025.
According to a U.S. official cited in the article, Ukrainian forces aimed at a military target in the same general region—one they had previously struck—but the site was not near Putin’s residence. No attack occurred on the residence itself.
The Russian accusation surfaced shortly after positive U.S.-brokered peace talks between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, with Ukraine denying the claims as an attempt to derail negotiations. President Trump initially expressed anger after Putin raised the issue in a phone call but later appeared to downplay it by sharing a New York Post editorial criticizing Russia’s “bluster” as obstructing peace.
Russia provided some details, including drone wreckage and flight path maps, but U.S. intelligence found no evidence supporting an intent to target Putin personally. The findings align with Ukraine’s denials and highlight tensions amid ongoing efforts to end the war.
Did you catch the Male Bovine Excrement (MBE) in the so called CIA debunking?
Ukrainian forces aimed at a military target in the same general region—one they had previously struck—but the site was not near Putin’s residence. No attack occurred on the residence itself.
How does the CIA know that the Ukrainians were aiming at a military target near the Putin residence since all of the drones were shot down? Did the Ukrainians tell their CIA handlers or was it something more sinister. Let’s start with the fact that the CIA tacitly admitted that, as the Russians claimed, 91 drones were shot down. If no drones had been launched — which the Russians already had debunked by showing the flight paths of each — then the CIA should have simply said, “No drones were launched.”
I think it is something potentially more sinister… Did the CIA know about the intended target because CIA personnel provided Ukraine with the targeting data? This may be the reason that the Russians are so furious about a drone attack that didn’t kill anyone.
Before introducing my appearances on two recent podcasts I want you to watch a short video that shows how much territory Russia has captured in 2025… Despite Western claims that Russia is creeping forward with great difficulty, the video tells a different story.
I closed out 2025 with Scott Horton, author of Provoked, and my brother from another mother, Garland Nixon:
Ep. 6203 - Larry Johnson on the Forces Pushing for More War in Ukraine - 12/29/25
LARRY C JOHNSON - UKRAINE'S DRONE MISCALCULATION - NEOCONS TARGET IRAN (AGAIN)
Summary
The video features Garland Nixon in conversation with Larry Johnson, discussing major geopolitical and military developments at the end of the year. The dialogue centers primarily on recent events in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, including a significant drone attack near Putin’s residence, and broader implications for international power dynamics involving the US, Israel, Iran, Venezuela, and narcotics trafficking. Larry Johnson offers detailed analysis on the timing, actors, and potential consequences of the attempted assassination on Putin, suggesting it may have been orchestrated by Ukrainian neo-Nazi factions with possible British and CIA involvement. He highlights the likely miscalculation behind the attack, arguing it has provided Russia with justification to escalate military responses in Ukraine.
The conversation shifts to the deteriorating state of US intelligence, which now relies heavily on second-hand reports rather than direct sources, leading to misinformation about the war’s progress. Johnson critiques the US and its allies’ flawed foreign policy approach, particularly the naive belief that regime change (e.g., removing Maduro in Venezuela or Assad in Syria) will solve complex problems, likening Venezuela to “Vietnam” due to its difficult terrain and insurgent dynamics. They discuss the limitations of US military power, citing the recent failure to control Yemen and the challenges posed by armed groups in Venezuela and Iran.
The dialogue addresses protests in Iran, which Johnson argues are misrepresented by Western media to justify further aggression. He underscores Iran’s growing resilience and warns against neoconservative pushes for conflict escalation. Similarly, Israel’s military struggles against Hamas reveal the limits of conventional military power despite the country’s advanced capabilities. Johnson predicts ongoing instability and psychological toll on Israeli reservists, with no clear path to victory.
On the Ukraine front, Johnson provides sobering statistics about attrition rates, desertions, recruitment challenges, and Russia’s demographic advantages. He contrasts the patriotic volunteerism and public support behind Russian forces with the coercive, desperate measures in Ukraine, suggesting Ukraine’s military sustainability is in doubt. The conversation concludes with reflections on the flawed Western strategy of focusing on “getting rid of Putin” without a coherent plan for what comes next, warning that removing Putin could unleash a far more aggressive Russian leadership and catastrophic consequences.
Larry Johnson’s website, sonar21.com, is promoted as a valuable resource for ongoing analysis and alternative perspectives on these complex geopolitical issues.
Highlights
- [02:00] 🚁 Drone attack near Putin’s residence coincided with Putin-Zelensky meeting, sparking major geopolitical tensions.
- [07:20] ⚔️ The attack was a strategic blunder, giving Russia justification to escalate military operations against Ukraine.
- [13:00] 🕵️♂️ US intelligence heavily reliant on foreign liaison reports, leading to misinformation about the war’s progress.
- [20:00] 🌎 Venezuela compared to Vietnam in terms of military complexity and insurgent challenges for US intervention.
- [32:00] 🛑 Iranian protests misrepresented by Western media to justify further aggression; Iranian government responding pragmatically.
- [39:00] 🇮🇱 Israel’s military failing to defeat Hamas despite technological superiority, reflecting limits of military power.
- [44:00] 📉 Ukraine facing severe attrition and recruitment problems; Russia benefits from greater population and patriotic volunteerism.
Key Insights
- [02:18] 🚁 Timing and Actors Behind the Drone Attack: The drone strike on Putin’s residence during Putin-Zelensky talks likely involved Ukrainian neo-Nazi factions (Banderistas) with British and possible CIA support. Zelensky may not have authorized it, indicating fractured command in Kyiv and external influence. The attack was not just an assassination attempt but a political signal, complicating peace negotiations and escalating conflict.
- [07:53] ⚔️ Strategic Miscalculation by Attackers: The perpetrators underestimated Russia’s willingness to retaliate decisively. Previous attacks had elicited limited response, but this high-profile attempt galvanized Kremlin and military leadership to intensify campaigns against Ukraine, potentially shifting the war’s trajectory. This misstep inadvertently unified Russian resolve.
- [13:22] 🕵️♂️ Flaws in US Intelligence Gathering: The US now largely depends on intelligence from foreign partners, mainly Ukraine and Britain, rather than direct human sources. This reliance reduces the reliability of information, contributing to inflated narratives of Russian weakness and Ukrainian success. The lack of direct intelligence complicates accurate policy and public understanding.
- [20:00] 🌎 US Intervention in Venezuela is a Quagmire: Venezuela’s vast geography, entrenched insurgency, and external support from Russia and China render US regime change ambitions unrealistic. Historical analogies to Vietnam emphasize the long-term cost and futility of military intervention aimed at simply removing a leader without addressing deeper societal and geopolitical complexities.
- [33:22] 🛑 Western Media Distortion of Iranian Protests: Protests in Iran are largely economic and political disputes within factions rather than widespread anti-regime uprisings. The Iranian government’s engagement with protesters and economic reforms contradict the narrative of imminent collapse, suggesting Western media is pushing propaganda to justify further confrontation with Iran.
- [39:07] 🇮🇱 Israel’s Military Struggles Reflect Broader Limits of Power: Despite advanced technology and manpower, Israel has failed to defeat Hamas after prolonged conflict. The psychological impact on reservists and the ongoing inability to secure decisive victories highlight the limitations of military force against asymmetric, ideological opponents embedded within civilian populations.
- [44:30] 📉 Attrition and Demographic Challenges Undermining Ukraine’s War Effort: Ukraine is losing 60,000 to 80,000 soldiers monthly through casualties and desertions but can only recruit a fraction of that number. Russia’s larger population and reserves, combined with strong patriotic support and volunteerism, create a stark imbalance. Ukraine’s inability to train and equip new troops securely further compounds its military decline, suggesting a grim outlook for its sustained resistance.
- [50:00] 👥 Removing Putin Could Backfire Dramatically: Putin is seen domestically as a relatively moderate and patient leader. His removal could lead to the rise of more aggressive figures like Medvedev, escalating the conflict and possibly triggering catastrophic retaliation. The Western strategy of “get rid of Putin” lacks foresight regarding potential consequences and risks destabilizing the region further.
This conversation provides a comprehensive, nuanced perspective on current geopolitical conflicts, highlighting the complexity of military strategy, intelligence reliability, and the pitfalls of interventionist policies. It underscores the need for realistic assessments and carefully calibrated diplomacy in an increasingly multipolar world.
Print this article [bws_pdfprint display=’print’]
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License •
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS
